FL - Road rage ends in head shot to aggressor. And teen burglar caught in act.

[Irish]

http://www.news4jax.com/news/23101347/detail.html

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- The Jacksonville Sheriff's Office announced Friday that the shooting death of a man whose body was found in a car on April 1 was a justifiable homicide.

Police said the shooting happened at Cassat and Shirley avenues in the Hillcrest area on the Westside just after midnight.

Officers said Christopher Alfaro, 24, was driving in a car when he was shot to death by someone in another car by one shot to the head.

Police said Alfaro rammed another car during a road rage battle. They said the other driver started spinning out, and that's when he grabbed his gun and started shooting.

"He fired one shot from his car at the other vehicle driven by Mr. Alfaro," JSO Lt. Larry Schmitt said. "The bullet struck Mr. Alfaro in the head. That car continued to drive southbound on Cassat Avenue until it crashed on Shirley Avenue."

Police said the 38-year-old shooter called them immediately after the shooting. They said he does have a concealed weapons permit.

Officers said when Alfaro rammed the other car, the other driver became the victim of an aggravated battery, which is why police said the shooting was justifiable.

"Based on the facts of this specific incident, we don't have probable cause to believe that it was a murder," Schmitt said.

The police will make the recommendation to the state attorney's office, but prosecutors will decide if they want to press murder charges.

[Irish]

http://www.wftv.com/countybycounty/23124408/detail.html

DeLand, Fla. -- When a teenager tried to break into a DeLand house, he didn't count on the homeowner coming home as he was crawling through a window.

DeLand homeowner Daven Woulard opened fire on the 16-year-old he saw breaking into his house on East New Street (see map) Monday. The bullet didn’t hit the teen, but the homeowner still helped police make an arrest; the homeowner held down the suspect until the police got there.

The man was driving down the road, coming back from the store and, as the man and his wife glanced toward their yard, they saw 16-year-old Jarrett Holloman’s legs sticking out of their son’s bedroom window. The window had been smashed with a brick.

"He was going in. He was trying to get all the way in." Woulard said.

Woulard had his 18-month-old son and his wife with him. Even though he didn't know who or how many people were in his home, he said he wasn't about to back off.

"Cause it's unnecessary that people should go through stuff like this, especially when you're working so hard for the stuff that you do have," he said.

After quickly pulling into his yard, Woulard grabbed his .44 Magnum handgun out of the car, a weapon he's carried with a permit for four years. He ran to the window and ordered the teen out.

"'Get down! 'Freeze!'" he said he yelled before firing a shot into the ground to back the order up.

Woulard said the teen didn't say anything as he held him to the ground and waited for police to show up.

"He’s got a gun permit and this is his home and that's his family and he's protecting them," Daven's mom, Debbie Woulard, said.

Police arrested Jarrett Holloman and charged him with burglary. He's being held by the Department of Juvenile Justice.

[-gary]

The "all gun laws are unconstitutional!" people will undoubtedly follow my post, but both of those reports, more so the first, are examples of why we will end up loosing any remaining rights we still have.

Shooting someone in the head for hitting your car is really crossing the line. If you pull over, stop and the guy tries to hit/attack you, then it's all fair game, but to start firing because he rammed you is a thin excuse. The Brady bunch will actually be able to rightfully claim their shootouts over fender-bender fears are coming true. Maybe it's just really bad reporting of what really happened.

[khc3]

A "fender-bender" is normally considered an "accident."

Ramming someone intentionally is, as the article points out, aggravated battery.

That whole "intent" thing makes all the difference in this case.

[Jerm]

The "all gun laws are unconstitutional!" people will undoubtedly follow my post, but both of those reports, more so the first, are examples of why we will end up loosing any remaining rights we still have.

Shooting someone in the head for hitting your car is really crossing the line. If you pull over, stop and the guy tries to hit/attack you, then it's all fair game, but to start firing because he rammed you is a thin excuse. The Brady bunch will actually be able to rightfully claim their shootouts over fender-bender fears are coming true. Maybe it's just really bad reporting of what really happened.

WTF are you talking about?

There was no "fender bender".That implies a mild accident.

This guy was intentionally ramming the other with his vehicle(a deadly weapon).

The second story no one was even shot.

[rifleman2000]

The "all gun laws are unconstitutional!" people will undoubtedly follow my post, but both of those reports, more so the first, are examples of why we will end up loosing any remaining rights we still have.

Shooting someone in the head for hitting your car is really crossing the line. If you pull over, stop and the guy tries to hit/attack you, then it's all fair game, but to start firing because he rammed you is a thin excuse. The Brady bunch will actually be able to rightfully claim their shootouts over fender-bender fears are coming true. Maybe it's just really bad reporting of what really happened.

This is one of the dumbest posts I have ever read. This was not a fender bender. It was assault with a deadly weapon (car).

Must I say... go back to DU.

[noops]

So justifiable homicide/self defense is why we're all going to lose our rights. You are a genius.

[-gary]

Call me names all you like, but like or not, agree with it or not, when people are shot over "road rage battle(s)", public perception will change for the worse. We are at a precarious point in gun rights history and while there have been enormous strides, there is still a majority of anti-gun members of almost all states and federal governments. Large swaths of people in the most populous states that just happen to be the most anti-gun still control the largest blocks of votes in our government. Shooting someone in your own home or with a weapon is one thing, but to have it occur in a situation that I would say most Americans have been in without shooting on roads that they drive every day will change them from a silent majority to a vocal one.

[rifleman2000]

Call me names all you like, but like or not, agree with it or not, when people are shot over "road rage battle(s)", public perception will change for the worse. We are at a precarious point in gun rights history and while there have been enormous strides, there is still a majority of anti-gun members of almost all states and federal governments. Large swaths of people in the most populous states that just happen to be the most anti-gun still control the largest blocks of votes in our government. Shooting someone in your own home or with a weapon is one thing, but to have it occur in a situation that I would say most Americans have been in without shooting on roads that they drive every day will change them from a silent majority to a vocal one.

So the victim of the attack should not have shot for political reasons, even though his life was threatened.

I would like to hear you explain that to him. And the next time your life is threatened, consider the political impact of your actions and how it might appear to the sheeple. In fact, don't carry a gun at all because it is offensive to sheeple and we might lose our right to carry at all! I'm with you on this!

[noops]

Gary,

I understand your point...sorta..., but are you really saying that the person should not have defended himself? Someone is trying to assault you with a weapon likely more dangerous than a handgun.

If not, then what's the point of the right?

Noops